Fun fact: George Takei himself complained that Sulu is portrait gay in the new movies. He said that even tho he himself is gay, he always played Sulu as a straight guy. But why would the headcanon of an actor be more important than any other
I mean, if it informs the performance meaningfully, it’s part of the end product. Doesn’t mean it’s necessarily canon or whatever, but it certainly has the potential to impact later performances if direction moves away from the actor’s previous internal preparation.
I could see it being off-putting to work under a director or with writing that bleeds your public personality into your role, especially if it’s one you’ve gotten to a certain place with.
Like even as a roleplayer, any character i might embody in the moment has a life of its own that’s distinct from mine, and would make decisions that I wouldn’t. If someone tried to push me into acting a way that’s more typical of myself out of character or that’s more in line with a different character I play, or if they reacted to the character based on that outside stuff, I’d certainly resist it.
True, I totally see your point. I think there are different ways to see this:
First, it’s someone else who played it so he wasn’t forced to do anything. It’s just a role he played and now someone else does with different interpretations. You wouldn’t blame a Hamlett actor for performing differently than their predecessor. Sure, it’s different since Sulu was brought into existence by Takei and didn’t really exist in a book or something but still a fictional character played by different people.
Since it’s just one little scene I didn’t even remember after the first time watching, it isn’t part of his story or character building or something. He is just greeted by his husband (or partner) and daughter. In my eyes more of a homage or easter egg to Takei than forcing his personality into the character.
Lastly, HolLyWood goNe w0ke aNywAyS. I don’t mean this negatively obviously. Media puts diversity into more and more places and it doesn’t even have to do with Takei himself.
Even tho I started the last paragraph with lastly, let me add that I think it might even have more to do with losing control of your creation. Sure, Sulu started as the character played by Sulu but he developed further. It’s like trying to force the genie back into the bottle. Sulu isn’t Takei and Takei isn’t entitled to control Sulu.
I can see how he’d be upset by it, and I don’t think it’s about lack of control. It’s like the people writing the character said Takei is just SO damn gay that they have to make everything he’s ever touched gay. Like the gay’s contagious. He’s contaminating characters with his gayness. Some people actually think that’s the way it works. Given his age i’m sure he’s seen enough of that to be upset by the implication. He’s an individual who’s lived a long and interesting life, not just some big gay caricature. Though he’s definitely that too.
George takei aside, i’m all for making more characters gay. Dial it all the way up. Sure worked for the she ra reboot.
Oh, I assumed he was talking about something written for him recently. Sulu showed up in Lower Decks not too long ago, and I know the franchise in general has a penchant for nostalgia at the moment. He certainly seemed to have a little more of a Takei tone in his LD appearance, but that may also just be him having grown more into himself over the years.
But yeah, if it’s someone else playing it and it doesn’t inform an established performance, then whatever.
It’s not just how Takei played it, the first thing an inhibition-free Zulu does in The Naked Time is to go after Uhura - and Mirror Zulu obviously has the hots for her too.
To be fair, John Cho played Sulu straight until it was revealed that he was gay. And even then, there wasn’t much gayness to his acting. Unless you count bringing a sword to a skydiving phaser fight, but I’d consider that more bad ass than gay.
And even then, there wasn’t much gayness to his acting.
Care to elaborate?
What is there to elaborate? Other than a brief embrace shown on screen, he didn’t appear to play the role in any stereotypical gay manner. That’s all…
Why wouldn’t the original actor be the authority on the subject? If they immersed themselves in the material and have a good memory, wouldn’t that be “the truth”?
But why would the headcanon of an actor be more important than any other
Idk perhaps because actors can imbue characters with unwritten properties through their portrayal?
